Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
I didn't see any mentionings of either backup or timeshift in the court ruling - so out of context I assumed it's backup. But if you believe it's timeshifting - OK, what does that change in the core of argument?
|
look your adding a condition that it only fair use when you upload to the swarm and only you can access those pieces.
you justifying that condition because this particular case did say it was ok to have a common access point for the "backup".
but that not because such a condition is requirement of fair use, but because this is not about backup.
Quote:
|
Where did I say the bits must go through to you?
|
when you argued about uploading having to be done if the bits did not go thru that person it would be impossible for him to upload anything. your upload condition requires the bits to go thru that person.
[/QUOTE]
1. It is confirmed in court that sharing of copies made for timeshifting between the users who have fair use rights to make such copies is legal.
2. It is confirmed in court that seeder (provided that he has a right to timeshift to begin with) is not liable of public broadcasting if at least one of his leechers was not a legal timeshifter.[/QUOTE]
remember the act itself states that "not withstanding" exclusive rights fair use is not an infringement. By that definition if it is fair use, none of your exclusive rights exist. If none of your exclusive rights exist for that scope, there is no question about the legality of the copies.
as to point two, of course it does, the seeder is never giving any of the leachers a complete working copy, is never guilty of creating a single infringement. His hands are clean of an infringing act. If they were to rule the way making a person legally liable for the actions of someone else beyond his control. I could sue you for copyright infringement if you shredded a document and hired people to hunt thru your garbage and recreated it . You would be guilty for the copyright infringement i created without your control, just because you made the pieces available by throwing them in the garbage.
if you follow the law as it is currently written respect the concept of mens rea and actus rea the seeder actions are non infringing even if the leacher is infringing.
making the seeder liable under such a circumstance would violate the fundamental principles of the law as we know it.